Relay vs Squid: Speed, Reach, and Architecture

Relay and Squid are intent-based cross-chain platforms that route native assets without issuing synthetic wrapped tokens. Relay is a direct payment and transfer network. It settles user intents across 85 blockchains in an average of one second, using off-chain solvers that front liquidity on destination networks and receive reimbursement once the Relay Chain Hub verifies execution through an authorized oracle signer.

Squid operates as a liquidity aggregator. It connects more than 100 blockchains and 20,000 tokens across EVM, Cosmos, and non-EVM ecosystems like XRPL and Solana. While Relay averages transfer times of one second with costs under $0.01 plus gas, Squid settles intent swaps in roughly five seconds. Squid charges a 0% protocol fee on stablecoin transfers, though it applies variable routing fees to non-stablecoin swaps and relies on third-party bridge infrastructure like Axelar, IBC, and LayerZero.

Relay4.3/5
VS
Squid4.4/5

Quick verdict

The core distinction lies in architectural focus: Relay operates a dedicated settlement hub tailored for near-instant native bridging, whereas Squid aggregates liquidity across dozens of decentralized exchanges and bridge protocols for broad token trading. Relay achieves execution speeds of one second by pairing deposits with solvers verified via its oracle hub. Squid trades four seconds of speed for wider market reach, routing across 20,000 assets and networks like Cosmos and XRPL.

Choose Relay if execution speed and sub-cent protocol fees are your main requirements for moving funds between mainstream EVM chains, Solana, or Bitcoin. It fits builders needing gas sponsorship APIs or users transferring stablecoins across 85 supported networks who prefer a single verification layer.

Choose Squid if you need access to non-EVM ecosystems like Cosmos, Hedera, or XRPL, or plan to trade long-tail tokens across 130 decentralized exchanges in a single step. It suits traders moving stablecoins at zero protocol fee or developers seeking drop-in swap widgets with execution hooks.

Feature
Ratings
Our score4.3/54.4/5
User ratingNo reviews yetNo reviews yet
Security3.54.0
Speed5.04.5
Fees4.54.5
Chain coverage4.55.0
Ease of use4.54.5
Specs
KYC required NoNot disclosed
DesignIntent-basedAggregator
ChainsEthereum, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, BNB Chain, Solana, Bitcoin, Sui, Tron, OtherEthereum, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon, Avalanche, Cosmos, Other
Chains supported85100
Typical feeUnder $0.01 average cost plus dynamic execution fees0% on stablecoin swaps; variable route and gas fees
Typical transfer time1 second5s
Security modelNon-custodial depository with authorized signer oracle Hub and relayer settlementDepends on the underlying route
Audited Yes Yes
TokenNot disclosedQUID
Intent-based Yes Yes
Native token transfers (no wrapped tokens) Yes Yes
Company
Founded20232022
HeadquartersUnited StatesVirgin Islands, British
InvestorsArchetype, Union Square VenturesNorth Island Ventures, Polychain Capital
Strengths and weaknesses
Pros
  • Average execution speed of one second across supported networks
  • No wrapped tokens used, settling directly in native destination assets
  • Average transaction fee sits below $0.01 plus network gas
  • Connects over 85 networks without pooled treasury lock-in
  • Routes across 100+ chains including non-EVM networks like Solana, XRPL, and Cosmos
  • Zero protocol fees charged on stablecoin swaps
  • Executes swaps in native tokens without issuing wrapped assets
  • Completed 9 security audits with no historical protocol exploits
Cons
  • Verification hub depends on an authorized oracle signer architecture
  • Solver capacity limits maximum transfer size during volatile market conditions
  • Relay Vaults retired in late 2026, requiring manual user balance withdrawals
  • Variable routing fees apply to non-stablecoin token swaps
  • Security depends on multiple third-party bridges and solver networks
  • Potential for slippage or execution delays during extreme liquidity shortfalls
Best forFast native multi-chain transfers, Cross-chain stablecoin settlements, Developers building cross-chain checkoutNon-EVM to EVM token traders, DeFi users moving stablecoins fee-free, Developers embedding cross-chain swap widgets

Highlighted cells show the stronger value in each row. Data comes from each provider's site and public sources; check details before you sign up.

FAQ

Which bridge is faster, Relay or Squid?

Relay is faster, settling transfers in an average of one second. Squid processes intent swaps in approximately five seconds through an off-chain request-for-quote system.

How do fees compare between Relay and Squid?

Squid charges a 0% protocol fee on stablecoin-to-stablecoin swaps, but applies variable fees to other token swaps. Relay charges an average fee below $0.01 plus execution gas across its supported networks.

Do Relay or Squid require wrapped tokens?

Neither protocol requires wrapped tokens. Both Relay and Squid settle cross-chain transactions directly in native assets on the destination chain.

Which platform supports more blockchains?

Squid supports more networks, routing across more than 100 blockchains including Cosmos and XRPL. Relay connects over 85 blockchains, focusing on EVM networks, Solana, Bitcoin, and Sui.

More comparisons